One of your friends has shared a page with you.You can click the link above to view this page.

Up Close and Personal: The Stigma of Mental Illness

Photonics.comNov 2010
Nov. 15, 2010 — A word to the wise: If you see Glenn Close in the security line at the airport, don’t approach her and say in a small, almost mousy voice: “Excuse me, are you who I think you are?”

It’s not that she doesn’t like to meet fans of the many movies in which she’s appeared — The Big Chill, Fatal Attraction and 101 Dalmations, among others. Something tells me she’s more than gracious about such things. No, the problem is, the question sends her into paroxysms of fear and uncertainty, as it inevitably raises another, existentially loaded one: namely, “Who does this person think I am?”

Close told this story by way of introducing herself to the Society for Neuroscience — to a capacity crowd in Ballroom 20 of the San Diego Convention Center. She opened the Society’s 40th annual meeting on Saturday morning with a talk titled “Bringing Change to Mind on Mental Illness,” this year’s entry in the Dialogues Between Neuroscience and Society series.

But the question — who does this person think I am? — echoed throughout her remarks as she addressed head-on the stigma still attached to mental illness. Those who suffer from conditions like bipolar disorder and PTSD might ask it about family, friends and colleagues who harbor misconceptions about people with mental illness. Indeed, as we saw later in the session, they might sometimes ask it about themselves.

Last year, after spending the better part of a decade watching and helping her sister and nephew seek treatment for different disorders, Close launched BringChange2Mind.org, a website aiming to combat the stigma associated with mental illness. She knew firsthand the power of this stigma. She and her sister came from a “stiff upper lip, Connecticut Yankee family with no vocabulary for mental illness,” despite widespread depression and even a suicide.

And even as she considered becoming an advocate for those with mental disorders, she said, humble in the recollection, she worried about how it might affect her career.

Glenn Close opened the 40th annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience with the stigma of mental illness. Last year, Close established BringChange2Mind.org to help combat this stigma. The launch of the site was accompanied by the release of a public service announcement directed by Ron Howard and set to the John Mayer song “Say.”
Unable to keep quiet, though, she established the BringChange2Mind website with the help of a number of others. The website provides “quick and easy access” to information about mental disorders and provides a community where mental health “consumers” can share experiences and simply take comfort in the knowledge that they are not alone.

The fact is, Close said, that the stigma attached to mental illness is still a potent force in society. While efforts to educate the public as to the neurological basis of the disorders have proved successful, studies have shown that, in terms of removing the stigma, this strategy can take us only so far. Recent surveys have revealed that accepting findings of a neurological basis does not translate to lower levels of stigma.

This makes it all the more important, she said, to find ways to attack these “persistent and toxic beliefs” about mental illness.

A Family Affair

Having completed her talk, Close turned over the podium to her nephew, Calen Pick, and then to her sister, Jesse Close. Pick, an artist, was hospitalized as a teenager following a series of psychotic episodes, or breaks. Here, he provided a raw, yet almost lyrical, description of the breaks — believing he was Jesus, for example, and not understanding why an old man with a beard wasn’t intervening as hospital guards struggled to pin him to the ground. The man simply stood there, he said, ignoring his pleas for help. Images of his paintings flashed across the screen as Pick spoke — haltingly, rarely looking up from his notes.

Jesse Close, Glenn’s sister and Calen’s mother, was the next to speak. Jesse, a writer, was equal parts funny and affecting as she talked about her manic depressive disorder and recalled the “mad but resilient lineage” of the Close family. Her great-uncle was deemed a lunatic, she said, savoring the word even as she spoke it, and eventually sent to a sanitorium. The family has tried to trace what happened there, but there are no records to be found. The man’s story simply goes dead.

You might ask: What does this have to do with neuroscience and with the research community in general? First, as Glenn Close said to those assembled in Ballroom 20 on Saturday: you will be the ones whose discoveries are communicated to the public, whose findings will help to advance the drugs used to treat the disorders.

But this is not just a story of science coming to the aid of the rest of society. Because of the size of the room, attendees submitted questions and comments on note cards, which were then read aloud. The first of these came from an audience member who had suffered panic attacks since childhood. It simply thanked Close and the others for the work they are doing. One of the moderators noted some eight additional questions and comments from people affected by mental illness.

In response to this, Close recalled a visit to a lab at a “very prestigious” university, where she spoke at length with researchers about their work with mental disorders. Afterward, one of the investigators, a young woman, approached her in the ladies’ room. The woman was shaking. She hugged Close and explained that she experienced serious depression “but I haven’t been able to tell anyone in the lab because I fear it would undermine my productivity.”

“We have to accept that mental illness is a global family affair,” Close said, adding a call for empathy. “What happens to us affects all of you. Honor that connection, and the stigma will become a thing of the past.”

The session concluded with a discussion between Glenn and Jesse Close, Pick, Society for Neuroscience President Michael Goldberg and NIMH Director Tom Insel. The conversation covered a range of topics, from the history of anti-stigma campaigns to the impact of current health care laws on the treatment of mental disorders.

she addressed head on the "stigma" still attached to mental illness
Is not quite accurate:
she addressed head on the stigma -she- still attached to mental illness.
And, as a persuasive actress, she got you to do so as well.
Had she attempted to persuade you of "the stigma of rape," you would have responded very differently: No amount of acting skill could have persuaded you.
Harold A. Maio, retired mental health editor

11/15/2010 3:42:13 PM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

I think it would be difficult to argue that there is no stigma attached to mental illness. Anecdotal evidence abounds that there is. And while I haven't actually seen the studies, Close cited research by Indiana University and Columbia University investigators showing that the stigma has not gone away. At the same time, the president of the Society for Neuroscience and the director of NIMH - both of whom are surely better informed than me - seem to think it is still a concern.
No one involved suggested that the stigma is any way endorsable; only that it exists. I would like to believe that everyone everywhere is enlightened enough not to mock, dismiss, stereotype, etc. those who suffer from mental illness. But I simply cannot.
Certainly, my awareness of this preceded my attending a talk by Glenn Close.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your reference to "the stigma of rape" and how I would have responded to it. Are you suggesting that rape victims have never been unfairly stigmatized? Or that I would somehow be less empathetic toward them?
Gary

11/16/2010 3:19:19 AM

- GBOAS

It is not difficult to argue against the term "stigma." No matter who employs it, and no matter against what.
"There is" is the beginning of the argument, it has varied meanings- "there is" to me, "there is" to you, "there is " to someone. "There is" to everyone, is a jump from those. It is not a universal, there are those who do not impose "stigmas." Most of us do not.
"There is" to Ms Close is likely not true, it is a verbalism she employs, not an act in which she takes part. She does not impose "stigmas," she imposes the term. It is a popular utterance, not so popular a practice.
Which aspect are you: An enforcer of the prejudice, or the word association? I'll take the second, it is the more likely.
Harold A. Maio (google my name for more)

11/16/2010 9:37:48 AM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

"The stigma of..."
"The stigma of..." has various endings, depending upon time and geography. Where enforced, and some were vigorously enforced, including the branding of foreheads (people designated as "slaves" in ancient Greece), they were physically imposed, not always socially enforced.
"The stigma of" rape is a word association, more widely spoken than enforced. In countries where it was, is, not enforced, reactions were not universal. We are generally caring.
The power of this word association depends directly from who internalizes it, passes, it on, causes someone to experience it. I do not pass on the word association. It harms.
Harold A. Maio

11/16/2010 10:14:34 AM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

Sure, I understand the "by naming a thing you make it real" argument. And I understand that "stigma" is a broadly used and probably often misused term. All that aside, prejudice and discrimination against those with mental disorders are going to exist whether Glenn Close talks about it (or I write about it) or not. Indeed, where we don't have words to describe those who are different from us we will come up with them, and imbue them with all kinds of emotionally charged meanings. That's simply human nature.
I do appreciate your perspective: that by talking about a thing we are in a sense reinforcing it. In this case, however, I would argue it's the lesser of evils. Thanks,

11/16/2010 12:11:52 PM

- GBOAS

"a lesser evil"
Were it so, you would be abiding other examples. The Women's Movement here took one from you, you will not abide it, the response would be overwhelmingly against you. World War II took another from you, the response would be overwhelmingly against you.
What you are arguing is presently no voice will be raised overwhelmingly against you, which is how the other two survived.
Prejudice is a personal thing. Unfortunately so are its effects.
Harold A. Maio

11/16/2010 2:26:43 PM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

Women refuted the "stigma" of rape, once empowered, where empowered. Close is empowered. It is her choice to associate it. I refute it. Women were my model for so doing.
Each time Close enters that term into print, through the cooperation of editors, she harms, they harm, as each time someone entered that term into print for someone else, they harmed. She directs it at me, no one ought ask me to thank her. It is an impertinence to direct a prejudice. A rudeness.
We have two choices with prejudices, voice them personally (yes one can claim "millions do," it is still one's own voice speaking), or deny them our voice. Our personal voice we have some ability to edit.
I deny prejudices, including this one, my voice, and sincerely wish Close would more carefully choose her words, that no one hear -from her- "there is" a stigma to anyone, anything. Then I could not hear, "How do I know there is? Glenn Close told me."
I do not endorse the word association she does. History has provided ample reason.
Her speech would not have suffered minus that association, it would have benefitted. The next time you do not hear "the stigma of rape" appreciate the power of its absence.
Harold A. Maio

11/17/2010 3:15:53 PM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

Addressing the issue of mental illness has to begin by not prejudicing the discussion. To date we have not achieved that level of discussion, our prejudices seem to dominate. We do continue to make progress, despite our attitudes. I feel a little like Rosa Parks must have felt as she struggled for respect. Some days are very hard, but with the intellect of Thurgood Marshall, the path was made positive, and the goal was achieved.
We will make it, too.
Harold A. Maio
khmaio@earthlink.net

11/19/2010 6:40:37 PM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

We will never be completely without bias, we do however have the cability of learning from past biases, and applying the lessons.
Glenn Close learned not to repeat "the stigma of rape." The media learned not to do so.
When Ms Close, or Rosalynn Carter, or any other public voice, iterates another "stigma," and the media uncritically accomodates them, the media fail both them and us.
Is the lesson being sent to intentionally prejudice us? I sincerely doubt it, Ms Close nonetheless, and those who cooperate with her are prejudicing multiple minds. Someone will say, "How do I know there is? Ms Close said so."
Harold A. Maio

11/22/2010 7:48:17 PM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

Ms Close is welcome to her "stigmas." She is not welcome to direct hers at me. It is an impudence. Lauding her for directing one is equally an impudence. Tolerating anyone for directing one is where prejudices get their main strength.

11/29/2010 1:15:17 AM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

At the end of the day, we are all entities that think with subjectivity. All opinions are based on just that, opinions. As human beings, we all have our own opinions, and while Ms. Close is directing her opinions at as many people as possible, it is your decision to listen or to ignore. Nobody said you have to listen.
Take a good objective look at politics in the USA. Many politicians (and their parties) use stigmas to convey their issues. Whether you agree with them or not, that is your choice. Politicians are not welcome to direct their stigmas towards me, because I feel that is an impudence. Does that mean that politicians should stop talking about their issues?
Based on your applied logic, you must not vote or listen to politicians, because it is an impudence that they direct their stigmas on their issues at you.
Take a good, long look at what the Republicans and the Tea Party are doing to stigmatize the Democrats. Are the Dems. right or wrong in the actions they have taken? I guess it is up to you to decide if the stigmas presented by their opponents are comfortable with your personal belief system.
But wait, you don't want anyone to direct their stigmas in your direction, so I guess you would have to be 100% neutral when it comes to politics in order to stand by your opinion.
See, doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous. I think a better way to express your opinion of stigmas is that there are SOME stigmas you don't wish to have directed your way, but not all stigmas. Whether you realize it or not, at some point you will base an opinion on a pre-existing stigma.
This is just the way human existence is, and if you could demonstrate how a human being can exist without basing an opinion on a pre-existing stigma, than you just might have the solution to world peace.
But then again, I am just directing my stigma about world peace towards you.

11/29/2010 11:13:08 AM

-

"At the end of the day, we are all entities that think with subjectivity."
No, we are not all.
Some of us learn objectivity, sensitivity, sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly. Through the ARK Rahm Emanuel will not publicly misuse one term again, and through the Special Olympics President Obmama will not make another.
Will Ms Close learn hers is a deprecation? Likely not. No similar organizations have instructed her.

11/29/2010 12:16:14 PM

- HAROLD A. MAIO

We are all entitled to our subjective opinions...
If we have to LEARN to be objective (either slowly or quickly) than guess what, we were subjective to begin with!! Perhaps humans can train themselves to only think with objectivity, but name me one person that is only objective and not ever subjective...
The only 100% truly objective beings in our world are computers.

11/30/2010 4:26:07 PM

-

We are all entitled to our subjective opinions...
If we have to LEARN to be objective (either slowly or quickly) than guess what, we were subjective to begin with!! Perhaps humans can train themselves to only think with objectivity, but name me one person that is only objective and not ever subjective...
The only 100% truly objective beings in our world are computers.

11/30/2010 4:26:15 PM

-

We are all entitled to our subjective opinions...
If we have to LEARN to be objective (either slowly or quickly) than guess what, we were subjective to begin with!! Perhaps humans can train themselves to only think with objectivity, but name me one person that is only objective and not ever subjective...
The only 100% truly objective beings in our world are computers.